Forum:Wikia skin update
Changes are going to be needed to accommodate the new skin change, many involving templates. The goal of this project page is to coordinate the effort to update the wiki for display on the new skin. For the moment, we're merely identifying required changes and brainstorming ideas. Identifying "problem" pages Changes to the skin should not affect the proper display of most pages. Some pages, however, will display incorrectly in the new skin. Initially, we will just identify these "problem" pages. If/when the switch to the new skin is imminent, the goal will switch to actually making the required changes. Width One of the largest changes in the new skin is the introduction of a 'fixed-width' content area. Pages will no longer stretch to fill the width of a screen. Instead, the width of all content on the wiki (Excepting the main page) will be restricted to 660 pixels in width. (See: Transition guide at the community wikia.) As much of our content was designed for a much larger viewing width, some templates, tables, and articles will not fit into a 660pixel wide area. Any pages that don't currently fit this size will need to be changed. Category If you see a page that looks like it won't display correctly in the new skin, please add it to Category:Articles needing adjustment for Wikia update, and if needed, start a discussion for what changes will be required either on this project page or the article's talk page. Use discretion: if the required change is obvious (and uncontroversial), there's no need to start a discussion. However, if there is any doubt that the change would be accepted by all, err on the side of caution and start a discussion. Specific types of pages needing changes Cluster pages Almost all cluster pages using the cluster templates are too wide in the new skin. (Example: Cluster:Armstrong Nebula) One way to resolve this would be to change the templates themselves to use a more compact way to display the information. * User:Teugene has some modified templates in their Sandbox. Users wanting to assist may wish to coordinate with them, or start a new discussion on possible solutions. The accepted solution will be listed here once agreed upon. Planet pages Discussion at Planet pages discussion Planet pages which include multiple floated elements side-by-side squeeze text into a very small space in the new skin (Example: Presrop). A general solution that keeps these pages consistent would be preferable to a piecemeal solution where each page is adjusted according to a single user's preferences. The accepted solution will be listed here once agreed upon. Thematic changes Unrelated to any specific page, there are some changes to the overall presentation of the wiki that will be required in the move to the new Wikia skin. Background Discussion at Background discussion There have been suggestions to change the background of the wiki away from the current 'stary' background. Mockups of these have been included above. If a change is wanted, the agreed upon background will be included here. Navigation Discussion at: Navigation discussion The navigation sidebar will be removed. In its place, there will be 4 links alongside the wiki's logo, each with 7 sub-links. As we have more than 32 links in our current navigation, we will have to reorganize our navigational links to accommodate this new style. The finalized (i.e. agreed upon) navigation will be included here. Wordmark Discussion at: Forum:Wordmark We need to update the Wiki's logo with what is called a word mark. Currently the Wiki's logo is this, but we already have several suggetions so keep them coming. Comments This page is just to collect all of the changes that will be required by the switch to the new Wikia skin. If you see anything that hasn't yet been identified above (or feel that anything needs to be clarified or revised), please do so above. -- Dammej (talk) 01:29, September 26, 2010 (UTC) :I've modified the page to include links to discussion here about specific topics. If a topic becomes too unwieldy, someone can start a new project with that specific change as its stated purpose. As always, suggestions for how to better organize this page/project are wanted and appreciated. -- Dammej (talk) 06:17, October 4, 2010 (UTC) Navigation discussion Throwin' an idea for the navigation bar out there: *Series **Mass Effect **Mass Effect 2 **Mass Effect 3 **Mass Effect Galaxy **Downloadable Content **Books **Comics *Gameplay **Guides **Missions **Assignments **Equipment **Powers **Talents *Universe **Codex **Milky Way **Races **Characters **Timeline **Storyline **Cerberus Daily News *Community **Manual of Style **Community Guidelines **Forum **Recent Blog Posts So, just a rough outline. Not all of the available sub-link spaces are filled, so we've got room to grow for whatever the future may bring. -- Commdor (Talk) 02:36, September 26, 2010 (UTC) :If it were up to me I'd make the menus 'Games' 'Media' 'Universe' and 'Community', and I'd put Galaxy in with games. Seems a more logical way to break things down to me.JakePT 04:57, September 29, 2010 (UTC) ::I like it. I've updated my outline accordingly. -- Commdor (Talk) 04:24, October 4, 2010 (UTC) :::I'd suggest combining the links to all the media in the series under one heading, opening another heading for specific game stuff. Right now, the suggested navigation doesn't have any quick way to get to game information. (Other than general stuff about each game). -- Dammej (talk) 07:08, October 4, 2010 (UTC) :I've adjusted my outline to add in gameplay-relevant links. -- Commdor (Talk) 22:13, October 6, 2010 (UTC) ::A couple of Suggestions that I have. :::1) Adding books and comics under "Mass Effect Media" :::2) Renaming "Mass Effect Media" to "Mass Effect Series" to match what we have now. :::3) Scrapping the second link to the series category under the "Mass Effect Media/Series". That is just redundent and wastes a link. :::4) Under the universe tab, adding links to Characters and Races :::5) We need other suggestions for that fourth link but I don't have any but we have three unused links that need to be filled. ::So that's what I got. Lancer1289 01:55, October 7, 2010 (UTC) ::This one needs to be solved ASAP, the current one is useless. CDN doesn't need to be that prominent. I stand by my suggestion, but I would say the lack of direct links to gameplay articles isn't an issue if we make Portals, ala the Red Dead wiki. It's a great idea. RDR Portal for example.JakePT 02:00, October 7, 2010 (UTC) :::(edit conflict)Not this portal discussion again. I really don't like the concept of portals just to accomidate the new menu. We can work around it but again I really am against portals. Lancer1289 02:05, October 7, 2010 (UTC) ::::You're saying we've had this discussion and Portals were rejected? That sounds like a really bad idea, why on Earth did you do that? I can't thing of anything they do apart from making the wikia exponentially easier to use.JakePT 02:12, October 7, 2010 (UTC) :::::Yes portals were rejected in a conversation between Spart, Dammej, and myself back in July. I still don't see a reason to create them. Lancer1289 02:19, October 7, 2010 (UTC) Lancer, there can only be seven sublinks under each of the four primary links. I could cut the "More..." link to make room for links to both Books and Comics, but that would max out the sublinks for "Mass Effect Media". -- Commdor (Talk) 02:30, October 7, 2010 (UTC) :Yes I know that. However since we have only 32 links, we need to make use of them all, and having two links to the same category is jsut redundant and a waste of a link. If more content comes out, then we can modify it then, but for right now, we need use every precious link and don't repeat for the reasons I already stated. Or until Wikia finally gets the lead out of its collective pants. Lancer1289 02:36, October 7, 2010 (UTC) ::I know you're going to hate me for not letting it die, but Portals solve this problem easy. It makes the whole thing much easier. You simply have Games, Media, Universe and Community in the menu. Under the Games section we link to the Portals for each game (Galaxy could probably just go to its article), under the media section we link to Novels, Movie, Comics etc. No need for portals and under community we have the usual Forum etc. That means we have a clean and simple menu (just because we have 32 links doesn't mean we need to use them all!) and finding relevant Mass Effect 2 articles is very very very easy, because you just go to the portal and have nice big links to walkthroughs, guides, classes etc. ::None of these other suggestions in any way contribute to making the wiki easy to use.JakePT 02:54, October 7, 2010 (UTC) :::And you brought up one of Spart's key points, why only ME and ME2 have portals? Why should a perfectly valid game not have a portal. Also we have articles for the games, which links to the various articles to their pages, and again I don't think I'll back down on this any time soon as I still don't see a reason to create portals for just two games and leave another as just an article. MEG is a game as well and by extention should have a portal. Lancer1289 03:04, October 7, 2010 (UTC) ::::Because Galaxy has considerably less related pages. Very very simple really. If a game/book/novel builds up a significant number of related pages it gets a portal (maybe Galaxy does, haven't spent much time on its related pages). Simple. Also, the current game articles are not designed for navigating around topics related to the game. For example, the current ME2 page has zero links to classes, the morality guide, missions or assignments. Even if we did make those words link to those pages, that doesn't make the ME2 page a good way to navigate to ME2 related pages. The current articles are about the game, with lengthy descriptions of features and concepts, it's not a bad idea to have a page that's dedicated just to linking to articles related to the game. Maybe a Portal is the wrong word, but in some way we need a way to make a page, whether its a portal or rewriting the game articles, that better acts as a table of contents for articles relating to that game. It solves this navigation issue, and it makes the wiki easier to use. ::::Frankly, I find it beyond ridiculous that we're trying to fill up all 32 links. How many decently designed websites are there with 32 (32!) links in their menu. It's a usability nightmare.JakePT 03:18, October 7, 2010 (UTC) Before this devolves completely to an argument over portals, I want to point out that this is by no means a final discussion on the navigation bar. All we need to worry about is getting something presentable up sometime soon. We can talk about changes and improvements later, after we see how well the first attempt works. The wiki's not going to wait for us to hash out the most perfect navigation bar ever. -- Commdor (Talk) 03:22, October 7, 2010 (UTC) :Fair point, let's just get something up, buta again I have to state that having two links to the same category is just a waste of a second link where something else could go in there. Lancer1289 03:25, October 7, 2010 (UTC) ::Outline adjusted (forgot to do it again after being edit conflicted earlier). Any way we can get it working now, just to have something checked off the list of new skin accommodations? That way, we can start a more in-depth discussion for a more permanent layout for the nav bar in a forum project page, and incoming users won't be inconvenienced. -- Commdor (Talk) 03:32, October 7, 2010 (UTC) :::That's fine, I didn't know if you forgot, got edit conflicted, or something else. Anyway we can get a more indepth discussion later, but for now I'll just copy paste what we have into the new navigation file. This is usable and still gets provides the necessary links. Lancer1289 03:37, October 7, 2010 (UTC) ::::Just stating "for the record" as it were, that I still think portals are a good idea. I just never saw any support for it when I initially suggested it. On-topic: I like what the navigation links look like right now. Well done, Commdor. You took my hairbrained attempt at it and turned it into something far more pleasing. -- Dammej (talk) 07:00, October 7, 2010 (UTC) Background discussion :::As for backgrounds, I can't stand the pink nebula ones, but the blue planet is ok, and the Citadel one is pretty nice. SpartHawg948 04:27, October 4, 2010 (UTC) ::::I've got no preference either way. I'd be fine with the current starry background. Of the proposed ones, I'd prefer the blue planet one without that photoshopped Normandy in the upper left corner. It stands out in a bad way. -- Commdor (Talk) 04:32, October 4, 2010 (UTC) :::::The background are going to be a intersting discussion. I'm find with the current star background, but I do like the Citadel and the Blue planet one. Still this will be a discussion when it comes around to full, and probably on a differnt project page. Lancer1289 04:41, October 4, 2010 (UTC) I don't mind uploading the file I used to make the sample template for anyone to have a try a background themselves. However, the file size is rather big and requires Photoshop CS3 or above to open the file. I'll see how I can reduce the file size to make it easy to upload and download. — Teugene (Talk) 08:01, October 4, 2010 (UTC) I like the Citadel background, it's cool, not too distracting and is one of the most iconic images of the Mass Effect franchise. My only problem with the mock up is the way the background fades out, or rather, doesn't. If I could get the photoshop file off Teugene I could show what I'd prefer. I hate the current background. Do we really want a generic, corny starfield as out background. It looks like a Windows 95 wallpaper.JakePT 08:42, October 4, 2010 (UTC) :My two submissions: Illium and Citadel. Citadel is pretty much the same as what we've seen, but I think this one blends into the black more naturally. Both are also wider than the examples we've seen so far, so people with wider monitors will still have some image at the edges. I personally really like the Illium one. JakePT 01:02, October 5, 2010 (UTC) ::That Illium one looks good, but I still would prefer the Citadel or the Blue One, no pink nebula, above. Still that Illium one isn't bad. Lancer1289 01:14, October 5, 2010 (UTC) Off-topic. I've also found the full-size 1080p original Citadel wallpaper and boy, it is gorgeous. Now it is my desktop background at work. About the Photoshop file, I might just have to flatten some layers to reduce the file size so it is small enough to upload and download quickly. I will back with it in a jiffy. — Teugene (Talk) 01:56, October 5, 2010 (UTC) :Also off topic, but I also have the Citadel background for my laptop. It does look great. Lancer1289 02:01, October 5, 2010 (UTC) Ok, I had reduced the PSD file size down to 1/6th of the original size (it was almost 70mb!). Also included in the rar/zip file are the ME/ME2 logos, the font used for the ME logo, images, screenshots of the new Wikia skin. Please use the Photoshop file only for this wiki. Pick your download links below and have fun with it! *RAR file (Smaller file size) *ZIP file Just to note that any background image has to be under 100kb in order for it to be used as the background. So if you have a great background image, it needs to be compressed to that level, and JoePlay has offered to assist with that if necessary when this discussion is complete. Lancer1289 01:05, October 7, 2010 (UTC) :Here's a version of the citadel that could be used as a background, but unfortunately it's 760kb, well above the 100kb limit. I tried converting to a 100kb jpeg but it looked horrendous. JakePT 03:00, October 7, 2010 (UTC) ::The more complex the images are, the higher the file size will be. I barely manage to keep my blue planet image down to 100kb without sacrificing too much. Attached is my 100kb background image: MEWBackground_1080p.jpg ::Guess the Citadel would be more relevant to the ME universe, being the center of galactic civilization... and the portal to galactic destruction. I've been fiddling with Jake's .png, and I too cannot reduce it to 100kb without getting those "ghost" lines (but got it to 130s without too much ugliness). The dimensions could be reduced slightly. --AnotherRho 16:48, October 7, 2010 (UTC) That's 97kb. It's not perfect, but it's getting there. Only practical issue I can see is being able to see the big cut out as the page is loading, and the possibility that some browsers may be 1 pixel off or something, leaving a border.JakePT 04:09, October 9, 2010 (UTC) :Can't you make the cut out area black instead of white? That'd certainly make it less noticable... -- Dammej (talk) 06:25, October 9, 2010 (UTC) ::Yeah, but I won't bother until we have a vote on the background, though it does seem like people like the Citadel one. Another option would be matching the background colour of the wiki, since then it will pretty much just look like the page has loaded a tiny bit before it actually has. Whatever we go with people who try to download the background are going to get a nasty surprise. ;) ::Anyway, since we've established that we can get a decent (though not perfect) background under 100kb, shall we start voting soon?JakePT 06:50, October 9, 2010 (UTC) :::Yeah, I really like the citadel the best. I just noticed what you were talking about with the background shifting. It only happened when I looked at the page in full-screen mode on IE. We could just make the cut out area 2 pixels thinner, yeah? I can't imagine that'd increase the file size that much. On the issue of nasty surprises: perhaps put the location of the original image in the EXIF data? :P -- Dammej (talk) 23:03, October 9, 2010 (UTC) ::::The problem can be fixed if the black column area be made a little narrower so it will not have any pixel shifting issues. ::::And about the Citadel background, by its own, it's gorgeous but when adjusted for the wiki, I don't the feel of grandeur I get from the original. I prefer if I can see a more prominent and recognizable part of the Citadel, say the central ring, instead of some buildings which looks like a generic space station. In fact, I've an idea for the Citadel background in the process of making it but I will get back here much later as I will be out soon. — Teugene (Talk) :::::Problem is, to get the ring in you have to move the background over, leaving nothing on the opposite side. I could blow it up, but then it loses detail and looks bad before it's even compressed. :::::On EXIF data Dammej, by 'original location' do you mean Mass Effect 2 or the wiki?JakePT 02:19, October 10, 2010 (UTC) ::::::I was mostly being facetious, but if we were to include the original location, I would mean including a URL to the file on the wiki (e.g. File:MassEffect2Citadel.jpg) -- Dammej (talk) 02:23, October 10, 2010 (UTC) Had an idea done up here: I'm trying to achieve a distinct and recognizable feature of the Citadel viewable from the sides of the wiki. It's just 101kb, so I think the file size is decently small enough. — Teugene (Talk) 15:07, October 10, 2010 (UTC) Are we doing anything about this? The current background is maddening. It's messier than the main content! So distracting.JakePT 13:18, November 21, 2010 (UTC) :Am I the only one here with a 5:4 display? I mean, I have really narrow frames, much narrower than the ones on these screenshots. However, I, too, think that this tiled starry background is horrible, and the Citadel ones look great. --Kiadony 15:14, November 21, 2010 (UTC) So, it's been 5 months, and the discussion just stopped. No answer, it just stopped. Are we going to get on this or what? JakePT 10:00, March 19, 2011 (UTC) Planet pages discussion All planets that have images next to (or across from) the planet template squeeze text extremely small. I suggest removing the extra images from these pages, or changing them to float below the template (my preferred). (Examples at: Presrop, Chohe, Luna, Chasca)-- Dammej (talk) 06:17, October 4, 2010 (UTC) :We could also reduce the planet info box. It is taking up more than half the content column. — Teugene (Talk) 08:05, October 4, 2010 (UTC) :Also, may I suggest to include the whole "Milky Way" articles which includes Clusters, Systems into this discussion? :The clusters templates is too wide for the current fixed-width. I'm working on some ideas at the moment and will post these ideas soon. — Teugene (Talk) 08:09, October 4, 2010 (UTC) ::That's another possibility (making the Planet template smaller). If we do that, we might consider shrinking all of the templates dealing with systems, to keep consistency. ::Right now I have Cluster pages listed as a separate issue, since it's not really related to the other problems with the Planet and System pages, etc. Fixing the templates will fix its width in every location where they appear. If you'll notice, I already link your user page and sandbox in reference to that issue. -- Dammej (talk) 17:29, October 4, 2010 (UTC) :::If it's not too difficult, narrowing the planet description box (etc.) might be better. Unsure how that's done, however. --AnotherRho 16:22, October 7, 2010 (UTC) Minor things to fix discussion I think we'll need somewhere to list minor issues that need resolving (if resolution is possible). For now, two three things I've noticed: *Text in level-3 section headings ( ) and lower is no longer bold (Ex. the heading for this discussion). *Edit buttons no longer appear for level-4 section headings ( ) and lower (Ex. some headings on Lair of the Shadow Broker (mission)). *And the color for bullets will need adjusting to its previous shade of dark blue (or was it blue-greenish?), unless we're all fine with them being white. I have no idea whether or not these are fixable (although I'm pretty sure the last one is, since it's just an issue of text color). -- Commdor (Talk) 05:24, October 7, 2010 (UTC) :The Level 3+ Headers are bold, but it's the choice font which doesn't bold in a very bold manner, at least at ordinary font sizes. --AnotherRho 16:26, October 7, 2010 (UTC) EDIT: After using different fonts, it appears that none are bold (as Dammej says below). - Thanks D. ::I'll talk to one of the staff about that becuase we use level four headlines on many articles. Also yes they are bold, it just doens't look like it. Lancer1289 16:45, October 7, 2010 (UTC) :::Actually, no headers (including level 2) are bold right now. This can be changed by adding this to MediaWiki:Wikia.css: .mw-headline { font-weight: bold; } :::At least they're not bold on my machine. -- Dammej (talk) 16:49, October 7, 2010 (UTC) The new skin crunches several tables, such as the weapons tables (AR, SR, and Shotguns), making them much longer than they ought to be. Aside from that, the extant tables are rough and the code is a nightmare (perhaps also made worse by the new skin's width limit). I've made up some new ones, for a proposed switch. --AnotherRho 21:04, October 11, 2010 (UTC)